5 ms·
> Both editors [ed: vim & emacs] are fully capable, it really depends on personal preferences I think that Paul Graham's Blub Paradox[0] applies to editors and
by zeveb 8y ago
> Both editors [ed: vim & emacs] are fully capable, it really depends on personal preferences
I think that Paul Graham's Blub Paradox[0] applies to editors and operating environments as well as to programming languages: someone using an editor or environment which sits at a particular level can look down at lesser editors or environments and see how much more productive his is, but when he looks up at other editors or environments he just thinks they don't make sense — at best they solve problems he's never had, and at worst they are just plain weird.
The troublesome thing is, vi is in many ways a better editor than emacs is, but emacs is definitely a better operating environment than vi, vim or neovim is, so you're kinda stuck. If you want a great editor, then you want vi — but then you're stuck with a terrible, sub-par editing environment. If you want a great environment, emacs is hands-down the best — but you're stuck with a hand-hurting morass of keychords. I honestly don't believe it's a personal preference to state that vi's text-manipulation language is better than emacs's, but I also honestly don't believe it's a personal preference to state that emacs is a better, more extensible environment than vi, vi or neovim.
Spacemacs is a really interesting experiment in merging the two, adding the text-editing language of vi to the operating environment of emacs. It's probably the way of the future, although there are just enough rough edges that I ended up returning to emacs.
Why did I do that, when vi is the better editor? Because as important as editing text is, emacs provides an entire environment for computing. It's the ocean in which I swim, the forest in which I hunt, the field where I sow my corn and the air I breathe. Less poetically, Magit & Org mode are awesome; four decades of contributed code mean that just about anything I want to do has been implemented; elisp means that anything that hasn't is easily implementable.
0: http://paulgraham.com/avg.html http://paulgraham.com/avg.html
- xfer 8y agoYou keep talking about "better" editor, keybindings doesn't make an editor, emacs is as capable editor as vi is. Then you go on to talk about how spacemacs is so much better, what? All it does is add someway to structure your packages and use evil-mode(which shows that yes you can replace keybindings).
- didibus 8y agoThe editor in a concrete form is one thing. Like what can the editor actually accomplish in terms of features. I'm not sure which of Emacs, Vim or Neovim would win this one. It also depends if you assume out of the box feature set, or potential feature set. Like with added plugins and customization. I feel Emacs has the potential for many more features, and does have more in my experience, but not out of the box. Vim has a slight edge out of the box. The other thing is the editing UX. The modal editing Vs key-chord editing. That's where I feel there is no all around winner. I find modal is great for small edits as I said. And single mode with key-chord I find better for long writing sessions, where you actually type a lot. Are you saying you find modal to be best at both of these use cases?